Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:06, 29 March 2007

Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

LGBTQ+ studies Start‑class

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Kickoff

I noticed the bit about sockpuppetry got added, then cut. I imagine it will be brought back. So let's kick off a discussion page and figure out if that bit is encyclopedic or not. I will say if it deserves inclusion the section was too long - there is a wiki page on sock puppetry so no need for an explanation of the accusation. --FNV 04:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the cut also took out the section on Greenwald's blog, which was reinstated and removed again. (In fact, since the same IP took out the blog section twice, it would be reasonable to assume it was the intent of the editor, and the sockpuppetry bit was collateral damage, not the other way around.) In either case, I think if the blog section is in, the sockpuppet allegations need to be in as well, but if it is out, then the sockpuppetry is moot. --The Monster 05:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with FNV that there's no need to explain sock puppetry in detail in this article, and I've trimmed it slightly. I've also

• restored all the recently deleted stuff, and
• convert most of the in-line links to <ref> format,

but I had some problems, as discussed below. CWC(talk) 08:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree a brief explanation of what sock puppetry is should suffice.

Also, I agree that mentioning the sockpuppetry accusations is appropriate. If people have an issue with how the section is worded or sourced (and this is a bio of a living person, so caution is particularly appropriate) then the best approach is to edit not delete the section. Crust 13:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Bush followers "not conservatives"

Note that GG bases this statement on the Bushies big-government tendencies. (Actually, there is considerable anger amongst the conservative base over the big-spending ways of the current Administration and (even more so) Congress. Bush's first veto elicited a wave of wishes that he'd started vetoing spending bills long, long ago.) I think we should clarify this. Maybe something like:

Indeed, he contends that recent spending increases prove that "Bush followers are not conservatives".

I'm sure one of us can come up with something better than that. Cheers, CWC(talk) 08:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to differ with you on that one, CWC. Bush's spending is one of GG's reasons for not viewing Bush or his followers as conservatives, but not his only or even principal reason. The biggest reason is surely the Bush admin's theory of executive power (and how they have used it), which GG views as profoundly unconservative. Crust 13:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hale's appeal re law licence

We have two links for details of Hale's failed attempts to get an Illinois law licence.

1. http://hatemonitor.csusb.edu/NewsHeadlines/hale_complaint.htm is "Dated: June 27, 2001" (and apparently written by GG, BTW). It's an appeal to the U.S. District Court for Northern Illinios, Eastern Division.
2. http://www.state.il.us/court/PressRel/1999/102999.htm is a Press Release from (take a deep breath) "the Committee on Character and Fitness" of "the Board of Admissions to the Bar" which administers the bar admission process on behalf of the Illinois Supreme Court. The committee rejected Hale's initial application on December 16 1998 and rejected his first appeal on June 30, 1999. Hale appealed to the Illinois supreme court on July 29, 1999; this press release announces that the Committee will oppose that appeal.

For one thing, we seem to have these links in the wrong chronological order. For another, I don't know how to cite those links. Help, please? CWC(talk) 08:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Bush administration

This section looks a lot like a blog - Misplaced Pages is not a blog - maybe a link to his blog would be best.

Thanks for saying something on Talk, but really the reason why there is an article about GG is because of his blog. If you don't think it is encyclopedic to summarize some of his views, mention his book, etc. do you really think it is encyclopedic to mention the sock puppetry allegations? Crust 15:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Heralded?

I've removed the following paragraph

This investigation by Greenwald was also heralded as a new advance in the importance of blogs in the national discourse.

because anonymous off-topic comments on a blog posting are a long way short of Misplaced Pages's standards. Cheers, CWC(talk) 08:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. Crust 13:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Feingold speech link

Does anyone have a working link for that Russ Feingold speech which mentioned GG's blog? The fednews.com one we have at the moment is subscriber-only. Neither the internal search at feingold.senate.gov for "greenwald" nor googling for "site:feingold.senate.gov greenwald" found anything. Surely there must be a better link for that speech! Thanks in advance, CWC(talk) 08:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

For some reason, on a quick google search I can't find a free transcript either. If you go to Greenwald's post that was quoted and scroll down to the updates, you can find various links to video of this. Crust 13:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection requested

I've just requested "semi-protection" of this article, because the speed at which anonymous and inexperienced editors keep deleting and restoring bits is too great for my tired old brain.

Hint: that "<references />" bit is actually quite important. Also, we probably should have at least one link to GG's blog ... just sayin', ya know. (Thanks to User:Crust on that one.)

Let's all take a deep breath and calm down. Misplaced Pages is a wonderful source of information, but we do not claim to be authoritative*, so errors do not have to be fixed immediately. Discussing things on "talk" pages like this one may seem boring and frustrating, but long experience shows that it produces better articles and less wikistress for everyone involved.

*Some people treat Misplaced Pages as gospel. If you know anyone with this problem, please educate them.

Have a nice weekend! CWC(talk) 12:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Crust 14:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The semi-protection request was denied. (Memo to self: steer clear of articles with real edit wars!) Cheers, CWC(talk) 03:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

68.127.37.172: I reverted your changes back. That last bit about "damaging his credibility" is POV, and the very last bit about how right wing bloggers use some mocking term "a glenn full of sock puppets" is unencyclopedic and not relevant to an article about Greenwald unless that term hits levels of other names turned into terms like "Quisling" or perhaps "Borked" in contemporary parlance. Also, if you want to change "right wing bloggers" to some more general term you'll need some references to non-right wing blogs carrying this charge against Greenwald.

I'm satisfied as a fan of Greenwald to leave a mention in here on this accusation (it shouldn't be a heading though), but as a living person biography we must not let criticism overwhelm the article. The reader can follow the reference link on the charges to investigate for themselves.--FNV 20:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As a non-fan of Greenwald I was satisfied to leave the sockpuppetry section as edited by SarekOfVulcan, even though I didn't think it fully captured how low Greenwald had sunk. Some people insist on completely deleting the whole issue and that's the reason I went back to my original. Regarding deleting "right-wing bloggers", is characterizing those bloggers as right-wing any less POV than saying sock-puppeting is "damaging his credibility"? 68.127.37.172

They're substantively different. "Right wing bloggers" is descriptive and only pejorative to a small class of politically extreme people. "damaging his credibility" is necessarily pejoritive. Besides, to my knowledge they are right wing bloggers, so why be afraid to say so? If we're going to allow the opinions and accusations of bloggers in an encycopedia article, it should be clear they themselves have some bias.--FNV 15:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Being pejorative has nothing to do with it. From your point of view Glenn Reynolds is a "right wing blogger", he describes himself as a libertarian . It all depends on one's point of view. As for damaging Greenwald's credibility, don't you think that blog posts like this or this make clear that Greenwald's credibility has suffered?Classical liberal 18:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The two blogs cited are pretty clearly right-wing bloggers (in that they are bloggers and are right-wing). Saying it damaged his credibility is a lot more POV (as well thinking that something should do something is different than it actually happening). Patrick Frey (who writes Patterico), for example, self-identifies as that term . What about rightist or right-of-centre if right-wing is seen as perjorative? Makgraf 03:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. I put "right of center" in instead of "right-wing" and dropped the question of damaging his credibility completely. Can we get SouthieFL to stop trying to drop the whole issue down the memory hole?Classical liberal 17:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

(back to margin) I suggest using "Controversy and Criticism" as a heading instead of "Alleged Sock-Puppetry". After all, there is bound to be more controversy, and more criticism ;-). In fact, that heading appears in lots of Misplaced Pages articles about people.

I also think it's a pity that we no longer describe the alleged puppetry as a venial sin (ie., a minor failing). Compared to death threats from Larry Johnson and the disturbed (and disturbing) of Deb Frisch, this is small potatoes and should be kept in proportion. OTOH, I say we should reinstate the link to Patterico's summary post here.

Oh, and I would also like to rant about #&(*@%^#*^ bloggers like Greenwald and Patterico who use software that assigns humungously long URLs to blog posts. Hmm ... Greenwald and Patterico are both lawyers! it's a lawyer thing! the lawyers are doing it to annoy the rest of us! (goes off mumbling ...)

Cheers, CWC(talk) 13:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi CWC. "Controversy and Criticism" sounds fine to me, though we might as well wait until someone writes up a second controversy. The link to the summary is back in. I'm fine with including the Instapundit quote that this is a "venial sin" (i.e. a minor matter), which is mildly notable since Instapundit has frequently tangled with Greenwald (or vice versa). I wouldn't give too much weight to Instapundit's quote being mild compared to Frisch or Misha on other matters; I doubt it would take much work to find some shall we say colorful characterization of GG based on this controversy. Crust 13:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Other contributors

I think it's worth noting that Greenwald has guest bloggers at times. Other prominent blog pages, as that of Daily Kos note the front page contributors - and none of Greenwald's other contributors are in a position to warrant their own wiki pages as far as I know.

I also put back in the references tag so those little numbers go somewhere again.--FNV 20:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Homosexual Unions

The intro claims that Greenwalds' parter cannot live in the U.S. because the U.S. does not recognize homesexual unions. Does Greenwald in fact have a legally recognized homosexual union that the U.S. is not recognizing?

Brazil allows a legal homosexual union from abroad to be used for immigration purposes, but does not grant them, so does he have one, and from where?

United States immigration law does not recognize homosexual unions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.189.5.201 (talk • contribs) 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No, he doesn't have one, but if the USA recognised them he could get one so that he and his boyfriend could live in the USA. Since it doesn't, he can't, and that's relevant. Zsero 05:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, do you have a source of his non-union status?

Alleged Sock Puppetry Moved to Here

I removed the Alleged Sock Puppetry section and am placing it here. I realize that there has been some discussion about this already. This is an encyclopedia - not an electronic lynch mob. First, the vast majority of readers do not/cannot/will not understand what "sock puppetry" is. Second, the accusation - even if true - is so far below the threshold of what is legitimate to write about a current person's life.

Here is what was removed:

== Alleged sock puppetry ==

In July 2006, several right-of-center bloggers argued that comments praising Greenwald on multiple blogs under multiple names were in fact posted by Greenwald himself on the grounds that they came from two IP addresses also used by Greenwald. They also argued that the posts displayed similar writing style and content, for instance citing Greenwald's credentials. Greenwald denied the charge, stating "I have never left a single comment at any other blog using any name other than my own, at least not since I began blogging." A few conservative bloggers accepted Greenwald's denial and argued instead that Greenwald's partner had posted the comments. Some who initially felt the evidence of sock-puppetry was insufficient later recanted after seeing further evidence and analysis.

There is no need to return it. --AStanhope 11:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the comments that say "Consensus is to keep" -- it was never sufficiently discussed here. I don't see any particular point in having it there, I just didn't argue with the people who did see the point.--SarekOfVulcan 02:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, was I ever able to read?--SarekOfVulcan 02:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The discussion under "Kickoff" and "Sockpuppetry" above shows a consensus to keep (though it can always be discussed more). As to your comments.

1. If the majority of people "do not" understand what sockpuppetry it, than where better than an encylopedia to educate them (and there is an entry on it). I highly doubt that most people "cannot" understand this, after all one person posting under multiple names isn't that complicated.

2. Could you please explain why it is not legitimate to write this. The issue are allegations about public behaviour on the internet (far more personal issues than this are on, for example, Andrew Sullivan's page. Makgraf 02:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

We're talking about alleged behavior that even after reading the article on sockpuppetry 95% of readers won't understand. It is indeed alleged: Greenwald himself denies it. The only way to make it proven would be to post server logs and to educate readers on how Apache and TCP/IP work... Let's not lose perspective of what is real, what is important and what this encyclopedia is all about. --AStanhope 02:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your point here. The paragraph is called "Alleged Sock Puppetry". It does say that these are allegations and that Greenwald denies it. I don't know where the 95% statistic comes from, but it seems wrong. Makgraf 02:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I for one do not agree with keeping this text as it stands. (1) This version is too long, violating the "undue weight" part of the Misplaced Pages:Neutral Point of View policy. (2) This version makes no mention of the fact that both Instapundit and "Patterico" described the alleged sock-puppetry as merely a "venial sin". (Also, there is no link to Sockpuppet (internet).) Cheers, CWC(talk) 02:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Given Instapundit and Patterico's obvious partisan bias against Glenn (in the interest of full disclosure, I've become a regular reader and commentor there), I'm not sure that the account really deserves attention. In fact, in light of other conservative bloggers' established record of doctoring photos for the purposes of ridicule (For example, Ace of Spades HQ), I would be as suspicious of their "evidence" as they are of evidence of Israeli atrocities in Lebanon. It's very easy to photoshop images like this, and I reiterate that these people have an obvious bias against Glenn. If this section must stay, it should note that right-wing bloggers have a history of doctoring photos for the purposes of ridicule of figures they don't like. Eric 04:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Eric, I think you've misunderstood what CWC is saying. Yes, Instapundit dislikes Greenwald (not surprising as Instapundit has been several times the subject of vigorous criticism from Greenwald). CWC knows that. I think CWC's point is that even despite this, Instapundit thinks that the sockpuppetry even if true is only a minor matter. Crust 13:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's one of the points I was trying to make. My main point is that I strongly prefer the article with the currently-disputed text removed than with it present, because that text gives far too much weight to this minor matter, so I wish people would stop pasting it back in. Cheers, CWC(talk) 15:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with CWC. This paragraph is too long, at least relative to the length of the article, giving this matter undue weight. Crust 15:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I understood his point quite well. I perhaps erred in indenting my comment so far, but I meant to address the entire issue of the alleged sockpuppetry. This appears to have become a bit of a cause célèbre in their region of the blogosphere, and given the penchant among right-wing commentators and bloggers for going to any length to discredit people they don't like, my instinct is that this is yet another example of baseless ad hominem attacks against people they disagree with. Since the consensus appears to be to hang onto some mention of it, however, I think it deserves no more than a sentence stating that he's been accused of sockpuppetry by right-wing bloggers, and that he denies it. Eric 19:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The current version does seems to go on too long. I don't know exactly why Instapundit would even be mentioned. It's not a story he investigated, he just linked to it after the fact. What about something like this:

In July 2006, several right-of-center bloggers argued that comments praising Greenwald on multiple blogs under multiple names were in fact posted by Greenwald himself on the grounds that they came from two IP addresses also used by Greenwald and displayed similar writing style and content. Greenwald denied the charge, stating "I have never left a single comment at any other blog using any name other than my own, at least not since I began blogging.". And then maybe something about venial sins? Makgraf 00:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think my 95% number (not understanding "sockpuppetry") is probably accurate for Misplaced Pages readers as a whole. Sure, it's second nature for us as we are Wikipedians. Most Misplaced Pages readers either come here through search engines or are reading Misplaced Pages content that is mirrored elsewhere... Only a tiny percentage of Misplaced Pages consumers are also editors. "Sockpuppetry" doesn't even have meaning in the political blogging world by itself - it is a Misplaced Pages term. . . . Greenwald is notable for being an attorney who represented famous clients in constitutional matters - and he is notable for being a New York Times bestselling offer. The allegations of sockpuppetry are at BEST weakly supported and at WORST possible fabrications/misunderstandings/mistakes. We shouldn't use the Misplaced Pages to push information as such, particularly where there is a clear agenda involved on behalf of the accusers. --AStanhope 14:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry is not an exlusively Wikipedian term, it is a general internet one. As such most people would either a) know what it means or b) find it very easy to understand (oh that guy's set up a fake identity to praise himself, kinda like a sockpuppet). Someone like John Lott might be notable for being a famous school but there's still a sockpuppetry section on his wikipedia article. Makgraf 00:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The allegations of sockpuppetry are actually pretty well supported by the facts, which some here apparently don't want to be aired. (Censorship sort of flies in the face of the whole Misplaced Pages ideal, don't you think?) It's a set of facts that provides some interesting insight concerning Greenwald's character and personality, issues that are always important, it would seem to me, especially for a writer of ideologically based opinions and commentary. It's also always important to show how one side or the other of political arguements have formed their views when possible.RFabian 18:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

]

I can go either way on including (or not) a section on this, but if there is a section it needs to be responsible and, frankly, most of the versions getting put in lately are not. This is particularly important in a criticism section of the biography of a living person. Some of the issues I've seen:

• This is alleged sock puppetry. I realize some editors feel that sockpuppetry is established beyond reasonable doubt, but Misplaced Pages shouldn't endorse that particular POV. This is not the place to get into the minutiae of this debate, but please note that even some right of center bloggers dispute the allegation, e.g. Steven Taylor of PoliBlog and Jon Henke of qando.net (for John Henke, see comment #7)
• Similarly that the posts share Greenwald's writing style. This needs to be represented as a POV, not an uncontested fact. (I doubt anyone disputes that all or many of the alleged sockpuppet posts are similar to each other, but it's less clear that they are similar to Greenwald's posts on Unclaimed Territory.)
• Greenwald has denied the charge; there is no excuse for versions that leave this out. I think it is best to include the quote from Greenwald on this.
• The allegations are of sock puppetry on other blogs, not on GG's blog Unclaimed Territory.
• Language such as "Glenn Freaking Greenwald", etc. is unencyclopedic.

Crust 18:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. I really believe that this section fails to meet most standards we would generally apply to encyclopedic material here in the Misplaced Pages. Regardless of whether or not it is true (we can't prove whether or not it is true) it doesn't really add to his biography. --AStanhope 18:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

By point

• "First, the vast majority of readers do not/cannot/will not understand what "sock puppetry" is." They will, see arguments above.
• "Second, the accusation - even if true - is so far below the threshold of what is legitimate to write about a current person's life." It should be as little as possible, as it's a minor point (as the accusers also admit), see the this version for example. Greenwald did confirm some of the evidence used in the accusation, but denied actually writing those things himself.
• alleged - he did answer, and confirmed the IP address evidence.
• writing style - this was the first thing I removed, as it's all up to interpretation and POV unless we get more sources that note it.
• other blogs, not Unclaimed Territory - true. I don't get why somebody confused the two issues/items.
  

--GunnarRene 21:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

GunnarRene, I'm sure you think that anime cartoon you added is very funny, but if you want to be taken seriously, that's not going to help your case. Crust 15:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

OK then. Since you don't like cartoons, here's an illustration from a mainspace article.--GunnarRene 16:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Incident logged

In accordance with current Misplaced Pages practice, I've reported this edit here. I hope people agree with this action.
(BTW, has anyone been able to rearrange those words into something meaningful? ;-]) Cheers, CWC(talk) 03:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• I don't understand. --AStanhope 04:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That was my silly way of saying I've listed that silly edit on the Misplaced Pages page where we record edits with silly edit summaries. But I was almost serious when I asked if anyone has any idea what "History Puppets are Known Controversy Part of" means. Cheers, CWC(talk) 04:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I'm not entirely sure how to handle this, but something needs to be done about the fact that if one simply enters "Greenwald" in a Misplaced Pages search, you get the "Grünwald (disambiguation)" page, which, not surprisingly, doesn't contain a link to the Glenn Greenwald page (nor should it, IMO). I would imagine that the solution is to have a separate "Greenwald (disambiguation)" page, which would include, among other things, a link to the Glenn Greenwald entry and to the "Grünwald (disambiguation)" page. However, I'm enough of a newb not to want to go down this path without suggesting it first.--BenA 16:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just figured out that there are Greenwalds listed on the Grünwald (disambiguation) page. So I'm just adding Glenn Greenwald to it. That was simple!--BenA 16:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Friendly reminder

Just a friendly reminder to the malicious editors who have been posting lies in this article: This behavior is not allowed and will not be tolerated. Misplaced Pages standards prohibit the use of these pages for the promotion of ideological agendas, especially when based on lies and disinformation. 66.188.6.131 06:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Changes made 30-Sep-2006

I promised myself I'd steer clear of this article, except maybe for the occasional obvious revert. But today I did one of those obvious reverts and was dismayed to discover just what a mess this article was in. So I've edited the article, hacking out lots and lots of stuff about the alleged sock puppetry. There are still far too many External Links about sock-puppetry, but I did reduce the coverage of this issue in the main text. Since that text will probably be bloated beyond belief within a few days, here's a copy:

== Controversy and Criticism ==

Greenwald has been accused of posting pseudonymous comments praising himself on conservative blogs. Sock puppetry of this kind is a minor offense in the blogosphere. Greenwald confirmed that these posts were made from his household, but denied any suggestion that he wrote them himself.

Please note: my version sucks. All I'm claiming is that it sucks less than what was there when I started. Please make further improvements.

I've requested WP:SEMIprotection for the article. Cheers, CWC(talk) 11:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

And semi-protection has been granted! Thank you, Glen S, for doing that, and for warning 71.122.102.23 (talk · contribs). Glen's last edit summary was "reverted back to the version not in total breach of WP:BLP" (emphasis added), so let's edit the article into full conformance with all Misplaced Pages's policies. (Having written that call to action, I'm now going to run away and hope someone else does all the work.) Cheers, CWC(talk) 13:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes - thank you for the sprotect. Let's leave it on for awhile. --AStanhope 14:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• I will second that: Thank you for protecting the article. Personally, I think the sockpuppetry allegations should be removed entirely, because they are unproven, and Greenwald's explanation is reasonable. The people who have made these charges are clearly motivated by a political agenda to discredit and harm Greenwald. Anybody can accuse anyone of anything; therefore, the standard for inclusion in an encyclopedia should be proof, not the mere existence of allegations. 66.188.6.131 19:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it should just be removed. For one, a careful reading of Greenwald's post indicates that he did not confirm that any particular post was made from his household. He simply explained how IP addresses work, and indicated that another person or persons left comments on other blogs, without indicating which comments or where. Meanwhile, he asserted that all comments he made were under his own name.

Secondly, it's a trivial incident, as Glenn Reynolds notes. I don't believe it's ever been mentioned outside the echo chamber of the blogosphere, and even on blogs discussion of this episode has basically stopped. I found no mentions of it on Technorati in the past month. The article should discuss the actual major criticisms of Greenwald, whatever those are, not an ephemeral dustup that has no conclusive outcome. --Michael Snow 05:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Reynolds quote

About that Reynolds quote. I've left in in, but let me just comment that Reynolds' view that sockpuppetry is a minor offense is his POV. Not everyone would agree. For instance, Lee Siegel (of "blogofascist" fame) was fired by The New Republic for sockpuppetry and John Lott is widely seen as discredited in no small part for his sockpuppetry. Then again, maybe Reynolds would argue that sockpuppetry in and of itself is a minor offense, but those two examples have other aggravating factors. Due to Reynolds' brevity it is impossible to say exactly what his view is. Anyway, my point isn't really about Reynolds here: it's just that any version that includes this quote should note it as a specific viewpoint, not necessarily generally accepted. Crust 16:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Reynolds is talking about the circumstances of this particular case, I would say. Note that the claim, whatever its merits, is simply that Greenwald used different names in leaving comments on various blogs. I haven't seen any argument that he used multiple identities on any single site to make it look like more than one person was participating. The Siegel case, or Michael Hiltzik, involved using fake identities to support themselves on their own blogs, which is very different. --Michael Snow 17:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Michael Snow, thanks for the response. I agree with you re what the details and significance of the allegation actually are. Whether that's what Reynolds is saying is hard to tell (read literally, I would say not). But really this is getting more into a standard criticism of Reynolds and his elliptical comments, not Greenwald.

I share your (and CWC's) wish that we move on. I am very tired of all this, especially the more aggressive versions that keep popping up that would be inappropriate even if this wasn't a biography of a living person. I feel there probably should be some mention of the sockpuppetry allegations, but no version is vastly preferrable to a bad version of this. By the way, what do you think of the recent version I created?Crust 18:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll chime in here: I think Crust's recent version is a great piece of work (especially because I did nome of that work!). Well done, Crust! And thank you. CWC(talk) 09:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, CWC.  ;) We'll see how long it lasts. And thanks for earlier putting some work into this. Crust 14:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

On reflection, I think it's better just to delete the Reynolds quote. After all, while he may think that (if the allegations are true) it is a minor offense, obviously other people (e.g. Ace or Patterico) no doubt think it is quite damning. So I think it's better to avoid the debate about how serious a matter the allegations are if true, and not comment on this which probably accounts for a relatively small part of the ink/pixels spilled on the story anyway. I have the sense, CWC and Michael Snow, that you disagree with me and you seem like quite reasonable folks. If either of you think it's better to put in back in, I'll respect that. Crust 13:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Patterico agrees with Insty. In his "Annotated Wuzzadem" post, he says:

Keep in mind that sock-puppetry is, as Instapundit says, a “venial sin” (as opposed to a mortal sin). Yes, there is an element of dishonesty to it. But really, it’s mostly goofy and laughable — which is why the puppets are on hand to help me make the point.

(I've quoted the whole paragraph to give the complete context.) I'd slightly prefer the article to say that this is a minor matter. Let's get another opinion before we do anything. Cheers, CWC(talk) 18:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

My preference is for the article not to mention the episode at all, since it's a "he-said-she-said" of little significance. If the episode is mentioned, I don't particularly care whether the Reynolds quote is included or it's otherwise described as "minor", but I do care that everything stated in the article is accurate. --Michael Snow 01:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Other Writing/Works by Greenwald

Greenwald has contributed a few featured opinion articles at Salon.com, as well as guest blogging for Tim Grieve (War Room) at same website . He has also contributed to articles at crooksandliars.com . I'm not a regular contributer to this article but thought this could go somewhere (I'd put it in myself, but the current format doesn't seem to lend itself to this info). R. Baley 00:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I say be bold and put this in the article yourself. I appreciate you're bringing it up on Talk first, but these don't strike me as controversial edits, so there isn't really a need IMHO. Crust 17:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing sockpuppetry again

The arguments made for keeping this section fail to address WP:BLP. Failure to provide reliable sources for negative biographical information is grounds for immediate removal. Notability is irrelevant. Chris Cunningham 12:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that Greenwald's blog is not a reliable source about what he himself has written? --GunnarRene 21:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It was an allegation made by a blog. There's no proof it was true, so now we have to include this slander because greenwald responded to it? ridiculous, I'm removing it. R. Baley 21:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

"Liberal"

Does the phrase "he is often described by critics as a liberal blogger" strike anyone else as POV? It uses 'liberal' in the sense of a criticism or slur. 70.245.163.74 05:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a particularly pejorative aspect to the phrasing, though it's likely that this was the original intent given Misplaced Pages's orc problem. Changing or removing "critics", perhaps? Chris Cunningham 09:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

This search for "glenn greenwald" "sock puppet" shows that the issue is notable.

Those with a Google toolbar will note that searching for glenn greenwald, five suggestions are provided one of which is "sock puppet". So not only are people writing about it, people are searching for it too.

There are no fundamental BLP problems here as a sections could be composed simply of quotes from Greenwald himself.

There was never any consensus for purging the material from the artice, and the article must contain the material in some form. I agree that the text must contain his denials of the matter. David Spart 11:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not whether the allegation has been widely reported, it's whether the alleged actions have reliable sources. In this case they don't; it's essentially the word of a handful of partisan bloggers. BLP is adundantly clear on this. It's swiftboating and has no place on here. Chris Cunningham 12:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not the case. He responded to the allegations himself. Thus that can certainly be included since he is reliabel source on matters concerning himself. You should not have reverted that without discussion. David Spart 12:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If Glenn Reynolds had said he was a cat-murderer Greenwald would probably deny it as well. Please read BLP before re-inserting obviously contentious material with potential to cause personal damage to individuals. Also try reading the page history, where you'll see it wasn't me who just reverted. Chris Cunningham 12:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively above, and no consensus was reached to remove, it is in way swift-boating - and even if it was it would still be fine to have this mentioned briefly that there has been a controversy and that some have said that he has been swift boated. EG John Kerry's article presumably mentioned that he was swift boated!

That's correct: Kerry's article says he was swift-boated. It doesn't say that "an awful lot of bloggers think he shot himself to get out of the war". Chris Cunningham 13:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed you betray your own POV beautifully in that statement. YOU think he has been swift boated. Fine - others say he has been caught. HE claims that it is all lies. That's great and that is what the article says. I can assure you I have no opinions one way or the other - but i believe that the wiki must mention this. David Spart 12:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Cat metaphor: Yes but if dozens of people say that he killed the cat at 11.03pm EST and used the axe that was later found in his yard, and he concedes that it was indeed his axe that killed the cat - suddenly WP:V is satisfied and wiki can (must) make note of the issue in a NPOV fashion. David Spart 12:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite. I shall happily and enthusiastically eat crow if the claim that Greenwald posed under different user names to defend himself is found at some point to actually be true. For the time being, I'm not interested in having yet another argument about whether or not smears on blogs are notable based on how many hits they get on Google, and shall remove them on sight per BLP. My own point of view is irrelevant so long as it isn't refected in subjective edits of the article which impart it on the reader. Chris Cunningham 13:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The line I added to the article does not say whether it is true or not - indeed as you well know that has nothing to do with what gets added to wikipedia. Have multiple allegations been made? Yes. Has Greenwald denied the allegations? Yes. Should the article describe this sequence of verifiable events? Yes. It is immaterial whether or not you believe them or not - wikipedia is not a court of law, and we cannot judge what occurred. We merely record the events, that is the basis of NPOV. So whether or not you "eat crow" or not does not interest us. If you are not willing to have the argument then you have no right to remove the material. I (and many others above) dispute your interpretation of BLP which means you need to build consensus first - saying you wont debate is insufficient. David Spart 15:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, puppetry again! Not reliably sourced. violates BLP. My favorite part of BLP is "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion." R. Baley 06:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Er look it is not poorly sourced. If you think that you can add a source tag not delete outright. How would you phrase the issue better. It is just not good enough. There are 3 good sourced for 15 words! If you could explain why you are not happy with the line feel free to say so. David Spart 18:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Right OK. Chekcing your contributions I see that this is just another sockpuppet of User:Thumperward. This is getting daft. David Spart 18:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't give a damn what you check. If you think I'm a sock puppet you need to report me. This strikes me as ironic on so many levels. R. Baley 06:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The sockpuppet accusation is poorly sourced because it's only sourced to blogs. As for it being "swiftboating", OK, that's hyperbole, but if there hasn't been any reporting of the issue in non self-published sources, it's likely a non notable little blog-war sideshow. <<-armon->> 02:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It was mentioned in the mainstream press a few times. But even with only the blogs (some major blogs writen by notables by the way) and his own reaction there is plenty. I fully agree that prominence must be given to his reaction though. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 02:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well can you show us some cites from the mainstream press? <<-armon->> 02:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well there was this mention in Townhall which got me interested in this in the first place . There is also this from Michael Barone in the US News and World Report - . There is probably more if I looked. But the blogs and his denial are sufficient anyhow. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 02:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I know next to nothing about Greenwald and just stumbled upon this discussion, but based upon what I've read, I encourage David Spart to read Misplaced Pages's attribution policy due to your assertion that blogs are reliable sources. Only in very, very rare circumstances are they considered reliable sources (which you can read about there). The US News and World Report you linked is also a blog. WP:BLP (which you should also read, as it covers this situation word-for-word under the "Reliable sources" section) is non-negotiable policy, and lacking any reliable sources that I can see, it simply cannot be in the article at this time. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A significant event that occurs within the blogosphere is a perfectly good reason to cite blogs (carefully and in a NPOV fashion) and the fact that the article is published online under the title "blog" does not in any way detract from the fact the it was writen by a massive name in a major publication. And anyway "Reliable sources" are not even the issue here - these are primary sources. We are merely saying x said this, y said that z denied it. Thats all. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 03:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry — TownHall: partisan source. Michael Barone: opinion columnist, and not someone who even characterizes himself as an objective journalist. Me: reverting section again, as per WP:BLP. —GGreeneVa 16:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Look this is nonsence. Partisan source? Almost all sources are partisan. Are you objective? I have no political axe to grind here, but the situtiion must be noted for all the reasons I set out above. If you think that there is a BLP problem the way it is writen then I invite you to change it to your satisfaction but not to remove it. That just wont do. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 16:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources being partisan is not the point. The point is that the cites are all blogs and due to WP:BLP you can't include negative information which hasn't appeared in published reliable sources. <<-armon->> 01:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the new sources I added are not blogs - they are very very reliable sources. Indeed if you dont like it try to reword it to your satisfaction - using only his denial - which is perfectly possible. I asume that he is a reliable source. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 02:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference PersAttackResp was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• Unassessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles